Environmental Warfare and Climate Change
The World's climate can be modified by a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, November 27, 2005

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

"Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels."

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, ... and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (...)Recognizing that military ... use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military ... use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. ... and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (...) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military ... use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

(Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)

The November 2005 Montreal Conference on Climate Change will focus exclusively on global warming. The debate on climate change will center on formal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability.

Neither the government delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the November 2005 Montreal venue, have raised the issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)." for military use.

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change.

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (AP, 18 May 1977). Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.

The Convention defined "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."

In February 1998, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program. The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

"Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, has never considered relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World's climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study (pdf) , the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios.

In the light of the November 2005 Montreal Conference and with a view to broadening the debate, Global Research has compiled a number of important articles and documents on the issue of "weather warfare". Included in annex is the text of the 1977 ENMOD Convention.

It should be emphasised that the 1977 ENMOD Convention is still in effect and that signatories States have committed themselves to abiding by the clauses of the Convention.

Selected Articles

Weather War? - by The Daily Express - 2005-10-08

The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2004-09-27

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

Opened for signature at Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978
Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations

The States Parties to this Convention,

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organiza-tion to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II

As used in Article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III

1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article IV

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall, within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex, which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting its validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

Article VI

1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

Article VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

Article VIII

1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to the Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.

3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to the Convention, concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.

Article IX

1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.

4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.

6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

This Convention, of which the English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, have signed this Convention, opened for signature at Geneva on the eighteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven.

ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION

Consultative Committee of Experts

1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.

3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.

5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committees work.

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

All aircraft at sufficient height for exhaust water to condense will lay down a contrail. This will diffuse at a speed related to atmospheric conditions, mainly wind and temperature. If sufficently cold, the vapour will freeze into ice crystals and the trail wil persist for as long as the winds allow.

The contrail takes a while to form - that is, the hot exhaust vapours have to cool for condensation to form - so there is always a gap between the engine and the appearance of the contrail, where the exhaust vapours are still too hot to condense.

This effect would not apply to biological agents, "barium oxide" and the rest. Biological agents would be destroyed by the temperature of jet exhaust gasses. Plain chemical agents would not "condense".

So, a question ....

Why do we never see (say) a twin-jet "chemtrail" plane laying down four trails ?? Two from the engines, and two from the chemtrail sprays ? Or -- two trails but ones that form instantaneously from the engines, supposing that the chemtrail nozzles are placed right next to the jet exhaust?

Any respectable camera with a big telephoto lens would be able to pick this out p.d.q. I've never seen such a photo. Why not? it would be so easy to blow the "chemtrail" gaff with very simple technology.

It would seem the chemtrail devotees have failed at this very very simple piece of sleuthing.

Last edited by sam on Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

As the trails appearing over heavily populated areas, this makes no sense. Let's say that the 'stuff' is sprayed at 30,000ft. Do you think it would simply flutter directly to earth?

'One of the world's biggest exports is invisible, generates absolutely no economic gain and is moved around the globe, continent to continent, by the tons. It's a commodity that's tiny and foreign -- in fact you might be breathing some right now.

It's plain old dust, and enough of it crosses the Atlantic Ocean from Africa to America to eclipse federal government limits in Florida. In a recent storm it was spotted wafting from China to North America, clear across the Pacific.

A 1999 study showed that African dust makes its way across the Atlantic, filling skies with enough particles to push parts of Florida, at least, over the prescribed air quality limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).'

So to suggest that any particles sprayed over populated areas ever reach the ground directly below the spraying just ain't gonna happen.

So it seems reasonable to suppose that if something is being sprayed at high altitude it is going to be completely indiscriminately dispersed over the country. It is therefore going to land just as much on those who organised and carried out the spraying as the rest of us. Therefore either:
1) It is medically harmless, or
2) Some antidote exists, and those responsible have arranged for all their families and friends to receive it, or
3) Those responsible and all their family and friends always wear gas masks.

Those responsible would be a reasonably large group, comprising those who ordered it, those who manufactured whatever it is, the crew of the planes and those who service the planes and load whatever it is. I think we would notice if all this group and their family and friends always wore gas masks, and it seems unlikely that they could all be given an antidote without any word of this leaking out. Therefore we can conclude that if anything is being sprayed it is extremely likely that it is medically harmless.

If it is meant to modify the weather, again those responsible and family and friends would be equally affected, so it is unlikely to be to our detriment.

It therefore seems most likely that if anything is being sprayed it is something that those responsible consider to be for their benefit as well as the rest of the population, in a similar way to floridation of water. But then why keep it quiet?

notice how one member mentions changing a page on wiki, to suit their view.

whats stopping somebody else changing it to what they believe?

i totally disagree contrails can cause a grid. unless the longer trails that last long periods can be shown to be the same via the proof i mentioned.

the evidence i would be looking for, would explain both trails short disapearing/long lingering happening at identical times and roughly same altitude.

the only explaination has been different engines. but no proof has been shown of that so far.

Wiki is not always accurate, it is true. I simply used it to provide a quick summary of the many explanations offered for the contrails you mention. Do you accept that, if accurate, these explanations could explain most occurances of lingering contrails?

Your complaint seems to be a specific one, about planes in visible view having different sorts of contrails. The video that I think you are basing your questions on is a highly questionable bit of evidence, but I think you have a reasonable question to ask - is it possible that contrails can appear differently within the same sky? I can't offer a specific answer as I'm not an expert.

the only part of this reply i disagree with is this:

Quote:

The video that I think you are basing your questions on is a highly questionable bit of evidence

the reason why is because i am not basing my questions on one video. i have explained before more than once the video was just to show the 'difference' in trails occuring at the same time.

i base my questions on a array of information, but mainly on what i see occuring with my own eyes in the skies where i live. so presuming i base all my questions on one video is a assumption that is false.

What are we going to do when they figure out how to make invisible chemtrails?

Why put things in the air rather than the water?

How does any aspect of this theory make sense?

How does "we don't comment on military research" mean "we admit we are spraying you with chemicals"?_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

What are we going to do when they figure out how to make invisible chemtrails?

i would'nt assume anything, theres no gaurentee of anything, if tests between 1940 to 1979 were carried out whilst the public was oblivious then it could easily be the same scenerio today.

Quote:

Why put things in the air rather than the water?

only knowing why it is being done would make sense of that question, but just because people do not know why something is being done dos'nt mean it is'nt being done.

Quote:

How does any aspect of this theory make sense?

it dos'nt. it is impossible to make full sense of anything unless you know the motives and outcome of what and why something is done. but again just because we don't know motives or intended outcome, dos'nt mean it is'nt happening.

Quote:

How does "we don't comment on military research" mean "we admit we are spraying you with chemicals"?

Quote:

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

Quote:

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

'The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.'

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

the spokes person says the tests were not harmful, however the report or conclusions from the report say otherwise, she then goes on to say.

Quote:

'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

ongoing means still testing. still happening, not finished.

the two questions i have that critics have not answered or mentioned themselves is:

why were the public tested on with out their knowledge?

how do you deposite micro organisms over vast swathes of the population? an industrial fan? please list methods how they could of done this that did not involve using a aircraft of some sort.

some people do not drink tap water at all and an even bigger portion use water filters of one type or another ,but as far as I know everyone has to breath.
why waste peoples time asking pointless questions when it is clear that something is being sprayed over large areas of Europe and north america?
the question is WHAT??
wheather modification or maybe biological experimentation how about depopulation with a man made virus?????
I don't know but its certainly worth discussing the possibility's IMO_________________Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground.
David Icke

"We do not comment" does not mean "we confirm that it is happening". I'm amazed that needs to be pointed out.

Quote:

some people do not drink tap water at all and an even bigger portion use water filters of one type or another ,but as far as I know everyone has to breath.

How many people don't drink tap water, use ice cubes, shower, eat any packaged or prepared foods or go to any restaurants that would use unfiltered water?

Quote:

it is clear that something is being sprayed over large areas of Europe and north america?

It is not clear, it is not even close to being clear.

It seems incredible to me that someone would believe, without any coherent explanation, that a vast international government sponsored chemical warfare campaign has being carried out for decades, in front of our faces, yet nobody can back it up with any real evidence._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Of course I know what it means. They don't comment on what they are doing right now. I'm amazed you don't know what "we don't comment means". Denying something would be commenting. This is blindingly obvious and it is completely silly to pretend this means they have confirmed they are still doing it.

Quote:

you believe what ever your told is true in the mainstream media or offical stances, without a coherent explaination don't you?

No.

Quote:

so its not as incredible as you think. the difference is people here are looking at evidence not ignoring it in favour of telling you what you should believe because cnn, bcc, or fox news told you so.

No the difference is people desperately scrambling to interpret everything into the most ludicrous, incoherent, implausible conspiracy theories._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Of course I know what it means. They don't comment on what they are doing right now. I'm amazed you don't know what "we don't comment means". Denying something would be commenting. This is blindingly obvious and it is completely silly to pretend this means they have confirmed they are still doing it.

they don't comment or discuss ongoing research , means they are no longer testing? if it was'nt ongoing then they would comment, get it! ?

Quote:

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

is the same as saying 'well we car'nt say but we are still researching and doing tests'

No genius, commenting on what research they are or are not doing is commenting on research. I cannot believe you would try this hard to misinterpret the obvious.

This is dumber than "pull it"._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

1. They don't comment. No comment means no comment, not " we reveal what we aren't doing, but won't confirm what we are doing", which is blindingly obvious because if the latter you are by deduction confirming what you won't deny. It really is ridiculous that this needs explaining.

2. Why is secret research secret? Why can't anybody wander around a top secret military research facility or MI5/6? You really can't imagine why?

3. Ketchup bottles. Most people eat ketchup. Can't disprove it, can you? Therefore HOW CAN WE KNOW THEY AREN'T PLANNING TO ELIMINATE EVERYBODY BY POISONING THE KETCHUP!!!!!!_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

you really cannot see why your answers give people more reason to believe there is something being hidden, can you pepik.

first of all you avoid the point, everything you apply to our arguement applies to yours but you fail to notice.

the childish level of response and attitude dos'nt help either.

im still mindful and aware there could be nothing in the chemtrail scenerio, however critics have done nothing to ease peoples minds about the possibilities of the trails and other events or reports being far from innocent. other than ridicule and give stupid answers.

where are the sensible and respectful debunkers? you know the ones who turn up and provide information which disproves outright the theory which people believe without acting or answering in a stupid way.

pepik your an embarrasment to debunking, i could make up better * that sounds more reasonible and likely, which disproves everything said on this site, if i was the type to make stuff up like you.

christ not even liars can lie these days without being obvious.

what disproves theorys?

information that says otherwise, which logical and sensible answers, whilst coming across as geniune person who is respectful towards each poster?

or taking the piss whilst making up the first thing you can think of, which is'nt very logical at all or totally unrelated?

your answer is now telling us they put chemicals in food without our knowledge, and theres nothing i can do to disprove it. and i know your taking the piss, but thats one of my points, you avoid giving a sensible answer to the question, so you are able to totally dodge the question without actually answering it.

then you say we car'nt disprove it, so how can you be sure these trails in the sky are not harmful? when they are high up and not able to be tested as easily as ketchup?

don't answer, i reckon you'll just give me more reasons to believe it, rather than reasons to ditch the theory all together.

im still mindful and aware there could be nothing in the chemtrail scenerio...

If this is the case Marky, what do you make of the posters on this thread who have decided that chemtrails DEFINITELY exist?

Why waste all the vitriol on people who don't believe in chemtrails? After all we are just on one side of the fence you so often claim to sit upon. Don't you have anything to say to Karlos, or Mr Nice or conspiracy analyst? Or are you happy that they blindly assume chemtrails to exist, just as I apparently blindly assume that they don't?

The ball is still in Karlos's court, in terms of producing the overwhelming evidence he claims to know about, and the barium oxide claim... i'd love to see any evidence - there's certainly no point in hiding it from the rest of us.

If this is the case Marky, what do you make of the posters on this thread who have decided that chemtrails DEFINITELY exist?

the trails do exist, i call them chemtrails myself, not because i think they are 100% chemtrails but so people know what im refering to.

the trails 100% exsist, which is why it gives the theory more credibility when people deny they are different or appear in the sky. because when they appear in the sky again, people will be like "i thought they did'nt exsist, look theres one now being made"

at least others do not deny their exsistence or the need to find out what they are. yes jumping to conclusions is'nt good but then i don't know what evidence others are basing their opinons on.

i can only go on what i believe from the information i have looked at. when critics turn up and mock and take the piss and deny their exsistence, then i debate with them because i know the 'trails' are there and do happen. the only thing in question is what they are.

Quote:

Why waste all the vitriol on people who don't believe in chemtrails? After all we are just on one side of the fence you so often claim to sit upon. Don't you have anything to say to Karlos, or Mr Nice or conspiracy analyst? Or are you happy that they blindly assume chemtrails to exist, just as I apparently blindly assume that they don't?

i don't, they waste all the vitriol denying something that is clearly there. im not the one who turns up denying what is obviously there in the sky and occurs.

Quote:

The ball is still in Karlos's court, in terms of producing the overwhelming evidence he claims to know about, and the barium oxide claim... i'd love to see any evidence - there's certainly no point in hiding it from the rest of us.

well we'll see. i can only go on what i have read or seen with my own eyes.

the letter i linked above which mentions cloud seeding is more likely in my book, it was always one of the possibilities and there we have a airforce letter acknowleging that cloud seeding is indeed done by 'commercial companies' and that to achieve rainfall chemicals are released to make the rain droplets heavy, so who is wrong here?. unless of cause total proof comes to light saying otherwise.

For a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures. Cloud seeding requires the release of chemicals in the atmosphere in an effort to have water crystals attach themselves and become heavy enough to produce rain. The air force does not have cloud seeding capability. The air forces policy is to observe and forcast the weather to support military operations. The airforce is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.

so from my understanding of this letter, it is saying that chemtrails intended to kill or harm do not exsist.

however chemicals are released into the atmosphere by commercial companies inorder to cloud seed. there is no mention in this letter of if the chemicals released in this instance are harmful either short or long term on a persons health.

i would assume not harmful, but then i have no possible way of knowing this, its more a leep of faith.

but overall, it seems to me chemtrail theory is not far of the mark. if a chemtrail is a plane releasing chemicals then it seems spot on.

however if by chemtrail we mean a plane releasing harmful chemicals intended for the public in a evil plot against humanity, then it may of been exagerated.

the only reason i say may of been, is because im not sure if chemicals released for cloud seeding are harmful, however i am now more than satisfied if that is the case, then the chemicals were only meant for cloud seeding and not intended to harm the public, wether the public could be harmed as a result of cloud seeding is another matter(floods).

in other words the scenerio could be that cloud seeding is done and that the chemicals effect public health, however that was not the intention, the intention was simply cloud seeding for rainfall.

so unless proof can be provided of harmful chemicals or that cloud seeding can cause persistent rain which causes floods, i see no foul play in the trails at all.

however at the same time the trails exsist and do occur and chemicals are released into the atmosphere, they just were'nt what some people thought they were.

Silver iodide and dry ice are the most commonly used substances in cloud seeding.

im not sure which other chemicals are sometimes used.

When studying the efficacy and consequences of cloud seeding experiments, the experimenters tend to be biased in saying cloud seeding with silver iodide enhances precipitation without negative consequences. However, much of the literature substantiates that not only does cloud seeding fail to achieve the desired effect, it also yields harmful consequences. Some of these consequences include rain suppression, flooding, tornadoes, and silver iodide toxicity. (1,2,3).........................

Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)

Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.

who do you believe? however this does answer pepiks question of why not attack the water supply, which spraying from the sky would do, well that is assuming he knows how water circulation works.

regardless i thought i had it solved about how harmful this stuff is then i found this which says the polar opposite.

From the cytogenetic in vitro studies, it was observed that silver iodide, either in acetone solutions or as a suspension with polyacrilamide, scarcely causes a doubling effect on SCEs at nearly toxic concentrations (1 g/ml). Such a doubling effect by silver iodide on SCEs in P388 leukemia cells in vivo was not achieved even after using 100 g/g mouse body weight.
In the Ames/microsome test actually a doubling effect on revertants was only isolately achieved with 30 g/ml in TA 102 (S9-) and at 150 g/ml in TA 97 (S9+) doses, which appear to be nearly toxic for bacteria.

So when you say chemtrails, you mean contrails, and then when i say chemtrails don't exist you decide I'm saying contrails don't exist and so therefore i'm just denying that anybody anywhere has ever put anything in the air? How did you come up with that logic?

So if i deny a government plot to poison the world then i'm denying air pollution exists?

I hope you've stopped eating ketchup since you can't disprove my theory. We just can't be sure!_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Last edited by pepik on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total

So when you say chemtrails, you mean contrails, and then when i say chemtrails don't exist you decide I'm saying contrails don't exist and so therefore i'm just denying that anybody anywhere has ever put anything in the air? How did you come up with that logic?

So if i deny a government plot poison the world then i'm denying air pollution exists?

I hope you've stopped eating ketchup since you can't disprove my theory. We just can't be sure!

that did'nt make sense, you obviously did'nt visit all availble links and information i provided above.

you say chemtrails do NOT exsist, i say there are trails that are different to contrails the only question is what they are. you deny this. i then find that cloud seeding takes place which releases chemicals(although not intended in a way the original theory promotes), it could well be this that is witnessed when people see chemtrails.

there is doubt over how harmful silver iodide is, which is used in cloud seeding.

we end up back at chemtrails but for a different purpose.

which are either harmful or not harmful, theres seems to be a lot of contridiction over that one point from looking around the web.

Russian Breakthrough Reported In Radio Telescopes And Electromagnetic Weapons

by Yury Zaitsev

Global Research, May 15, 2007
RIA Novosti

MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - A group of Russian scientists from Tomsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow have developed a series of unique compact generators capable of producing high-energy pulses of hundreds and even thousands of megawatts.

This compares with the capacity of a major Soviet hydropower station on the Dnieper or an energy unit at a modern nuclear power plant. The new generators are sources of electromagnetic radiation rather than electricity. Their main feature is a capacity to produce enormous power in a matter of nanoseconds. The impulses can be generated with a very high frequency.

Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Gennady Mesyats recalled that the first high-current electron accelerators were developed in the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s. Ten years later, Soviet scientists learnt to generate powerful microwave nanosecond pulses. The current generators have no counterparts in the world. In effect, Russian scientists have made a breakthrough in what is called relativist high-precision electronics.

The pulse is primarily of interest for fundamental research. Reporting these results to the RAS Presidium at the beginning of this year, scientists emphasized that sources with super radiation effects can be broadly used in long-range high-resolution impulse-based radiolocation and in studies of non-thermal impact of powerful electromagnetic fields on radio electronic components and different biological species.

Super-powerful pulse generators can test the reliability of radio electronic devices and the immunity of energy facilities to different impacts. They can imitate the interference caused by a lightning and even by a nuclear blast. Their tiny size and unique physical properties make their sphere of application extremely wide.

The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a product of a nuclear explosion. It puts out of action even those electronic control systems that have withstood the shockwave and reduces expensive smart weapons to scrap metal. There are different ways of generating electromagnetic pulses - for example, it can be produced by explosion-induced pressure on a magnetic field.

Physicist Andrei Sakharov was the first to propose using this principle in a bomb in the 1950s. Today, records in the size of an induced magnetic field, maximum current and properties of such "radiators" belong to Russian scientists. They surpass foreign counterparts by 10 times. Depending on what facilities the EMP is directed at, the damage radius can be from several hundred meters to kilometers. Without creating a shock wave and inflicting visible damage, it destroys all enemy electronic equipment. Moreover, unlike electronic countermeasures, electromagnetic weapons are capable of damaging radio electronic components even if they are switched off.

At present, the infrastructure and troops of many countries are stuffed with electronic equipment. It will be the main target for electromagnetic weapons. The destructive effect is produced by the high acceleration of the magnetic and electrical components of the EMP. They induce voltage changes ranging from 100 volts to 10,000 volts in circuit networks and terminals of radio electronic equipment. The ensuing massive sparking of cable jackets, their contact to frame and the ground, and breakdowns in connectors put the equipment out of action and lead to fires and explosions. To understand this effect better, it is enough to imagine what will happen to your TV-set if there is a power surge - it will simply melt.

The Americans were the first to use such weapons in combat, for instance in Yugoslavia. Some analysts believe that electromagnetic bombs would have given the United States a vital advantage in the early stages of the war in Iraq. They could have disabled not only Baghdad's control and communications systems, but also electronic components of missiles, even those located in deep bunkers. But the U.S. command chose not to use electromagnetic bombs for fear that they might disrupt its own radio electronic equipment in the area.

Today, many countries have electromagnetic weapons. Military experts predict a victory in future wars to those who will be ahead in electromagnetic radiation. In many cases, not only the military-industrial complexes but also different civilian organizations, research institutes and universities conduct studies in this field, thereby increasing the threat of radio electronic terrorism. For example, a broadband high-energy and compact wave source is sold without any restrictions. In several fractions of a second, it can burn down all electronic equipment at an electric power station, substation or control tower.

This is a very different argument, as I pointed out, you are now concerned about air pollution, not a government plot to poison the world.

Given how often people claim they are seeing chemtrails over populated areas, either the government is constantly trying to get city people rained on or you have no linkage between the cloud seeding and what people claim are chemtrails._________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Russian Breakthrough Reported In Radio Telescopes And Electromagnetic Weapons

by Yury Zaitsev

Global Research, May 15, 2007
RIA Novosti

MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - A group of Russian scientists from Tomsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow have developed a series of unique compact generators capable of producing high-energy pulses of hundreds and even thousands of megawatts.

This compares with the capacity of a major Soviet hydropower station on the Dnieper or an energy unit at a modern nuclear power plant. The new generators are sources of electromagnetic radiation rather than electricity. Their main feature is a capacity to produce enormous power in a matter of nanoseconds. The impulses can be generated with a very high frequency.

Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Gennady Mesyats recalled that the first high-current electron accelerators were developed in the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s. Ten years later, Soviet scientists learnt to generate powerful microwave nanosecond pulses. The current generators have no counterparts in the world. In effect, Russian scientists have made a breakthrough in what is called relativist high-precision electronics.

The pulse is primarily of interest for fundamental research. Reporting these results to the RAS Presidium at the beginning of this year, scientists emphasized that sources with super radiation effects can be broadly used in long-range high-resolution impulse-based radiolocation and in studies of non-thermal impact of powerful electromagnetic fields on radio electronic components and different biological species.

Super-powerful pulse generators can test the reliability of radio electronic devices and the immunity of energy facilities to different impacts. They can imitate the interference caused by a lightning and even by a nuclear blast. Their tiny size and unique physical properties make their sphere of application extremely wide.

The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a product of a nuclear explosion. It puts out of action even those electronic control systems that have withstood the shockwave and reduces expensive smart weapons to scrap metal. There are different ways of generating electromagnetic pulses - for example, it can be produced by explosion-induced pressure on a magnetic field.

Physicist Andrei Sakharov was the first to propose using this principle in a bomb in the 1950s. Today, records in the size of an induced magnetic field, maximum current and properties of such "radiators" belong to Russian scientists. They surpass foreign counterparts by 10 times. Depending on what facilities the EMP is directed at, the damage radius can be from several hundred meters to kilometers. Without creating a shock wave and inflicting visible damage, it destroys all enemy electronic equipment. Moreover, unlike electronic countermeasures, electromagnetic weapons are capable of damaging radio electronic components even if they are switched off.

At present, the infrastructure and troops of many countries are stuffed with electronic equipment. It will be the main target for electromagnetic weapons. The destructive effect is produced by the high acceleration of the magnetic and electrical components of the EMP. They induce voltage changes ranging from 100 volts to 10,000 volts in circuit networks and terminals of radio electronic equipment. The ensuing massive sparking of cable jackets, their contact to frame and the ground, and breakdowns in connectors put the equipment out of action and lead to fires and explosions. To understand this effect better, it is enough to imagine what will happen to your TV-set if there is a power surge - it will simply melt.

The Americans were the first to use such weapons in combat, for instance in Yugoslavia. Some analysts believe that electromagnetic bombs would have given the United States a vital advantage in the early stages of the war in Iraq. They could have disabled not only Baghdad's control and communications systems, but also electronic components of missiles, even those located in deep bunkers. But the U.S. command chose not to use electromagnetic bombs for fear that they might disrupt its own radio electronic equipment in the area.

Today, many countries have electromagnetic weapons. Military experts predict a victory in future wars to those who will be ahead in electromagnetic radiation. In many cases, not only the military-industrial complexes but also different civilian organizations, research institutes and universities conduct studies in this field, thereby increasing the threat of radio electronic terrorism. For example, a broadband high-energy and compact wave source is sold without any restrictions. In several fractions of a second, it can burn down all electronic equipment at an electric power station, substation or control tower.

Silver
Pure silver is nearly white, lustrous, soft, very ductile, malleable,
it is an excellent conductor of heat and electricity. It is not a chemically active metal, but it is attacked by nitric acid (forming the nitrate) and by hot concentrated sulfuric acid. It has the highest electrical conductivity of all metals,but its greater cost has prevented it from being widely used for electrical purposes.

Silver is almost always monovalent in its compounds, but an oxide, a fluoride, and a sulfide of divalent silver are known. It does not oxidize in air but reacts with the hydrogen sulfide present in the air, forming silver sulfide (tarnish). This is why silver objects need regular cleaning. Silver is stable in water.

The thread started with Alex challenging people who believed there was a difference between regular con-trails and what has been labelled "chemtrials".

By the bottom of the first page Alex and other critics were demanding that those who believed there was a difference provided proof.

Can you see the problem here? Alex, you made the statement that there is no such thing as "chemtrails" in a provocative way (deliberatly looking to insult those who held the opposite view to you) and yet you believe it is not incumbant upon you to prove that, but on others to disprove it - being the one who has made a claim the burden of proof is on you.

I'm not trying to prove to anyone on this forum that chemtrails exist, for one reason it is not a campaigning topic for me - it is something I am curious and concerned about but considering I have no idea what this means or what the purpose for it might be, it is not at present logical to try and convince the world it is happening. I talk to my friends about it sure, but that's where it ends. The main reason I am not interested in convincing you, Alex, isthis is that I don't believe it is something you can become convinced with by reading an argument - it is one you can confrim or deny through empiricism alone.

The reason I suspect there is something to this is that whenever I see this uncommon type of trail it coincides with a great increase in air traffic - dozens of planes criss-crossing the same patch of sky over a short period of time - and I know this is not normal as I have seen this happen in places where I reguarly go at the same time. Can I prove that to you Alex? No. I'm not trying to, this is why I suspect there is something to this - not why you should; you should watch the skies for your self and see if you observe anything similar.

The reason I don't buy the temperature/pressure/humidity argument is several times during a spraying campaign I have seen a perfectly normal flight glide through the same area of sky at the same time with a perfectly normal contrail. Can I prove to you I have seen this? I'm not even trying to, the only way you will confirm or deny this is if you actually use your eyes and look about a bit, but that's up to you. But if you want to prove to me I am wrong, you need to explain why neither of these observations should lead to the conclusion something fishy is going on, you certainly aren't going to do that by claiming I'm making it up or by calling me names, you have to come up with something solid.

If you don't want to believe in something, or don't want to look into something that is entirely your own choice, just leave others to their own business. But don't go around telling people they are wrong and then when asked why, demand they explain to you why they are right._________________

The thread started with Alex challenging people who believed there was a difference between regular con-trails and what has been labelled "chemtrials".

By the bottom of the first page Alex and other critics were demanding that those who believed there was a difference provided proof.

Can you see the problem here? Alex, you made the statement that there is no such thing as "chemtrails" in a provocative way (deliberatly looking to insult those who held the opposite view to you) and yet you believe it is not incumbant upon you to prove that, but on others to disprove it - being the one who has made a claim the burden of proof is on you.

I'm not trying to prove to anyone on this forum that chemtrails exist, for one reason it is not a campaigning topic for me - it is something I am curious and concerned about but considering I have no idea what this means or what the purpose for it might be, it is not at present logical to try and convince the world it is happening. I talk to my friends about it sure, but that's where it ends. The main reason I am not interested in convincing you, Alex, isthis is that I don't believe it is something you can become convinced with by reading an argument - it is one you can confrim or deny through empiricism alone.

The reason I suspect there is something to this is that whenever I see this uncommon type of trail it coincides with a great increase in air traffic - dozens of planes criss-crossing the same patch of sky over a short period of time - and I know this is not normal as I have seen this happen in places where I reguarly go at the same time. Can I prove that to you Alex? No. I'm not trying to, this is why I suspect there is something to this - not why you should; you should watch the skies for your self and see if you observe anything similar.

The reason I don't buy the temperature/pressure/humidity argument is several times during a spraying campaign I have seen a perfectly normal flight glide through the same area of sky at the same time with a perfectly normal contrail. Can I prove to you I have seen this? I'm not even trying to, the only way you will confirm or deny this is if you actually use your eyes and look about a bit, but that's up to you. But if you want to prove to me I am wrong, you need to explain why neither of these observations should lead to the conclusion something fishy is going on, you certainly aren't going to do that by claiming I'm making it up or by calling me names, you have to come up with something solid.

If you don't want to believe in something, or don't want to look into something that is entirely your own choice, just leave others to their own business. But don't go around telling people they are wrong and then when asked why, demand they explain to you why they are right.

The thread would not be tiring if sufficient evidence were produced to definitively prove chemtrails exist. Some posters seem aware that it can be proven, but haven't furnished us with their evidence as yet.

As I'm sure you're aware, (and it is mischevous of you to suggest otherwise) I cannot definitively prove that chemtrails do not exist. It is not possible to do that. Surely it is not incumbant on me to prove something that I cannot logically prove - you are asking the impossible.

That is why, to believe in chemtrails, I have to be convinced that they exist - I don't think that is an unfair or illogical way to proceed. This is especially true given that there are, according to many accounts, perfectly rational explanations for most (and I think all) contrails that linger.

What those accounts do not do is answer, specifically, every last question mark over the personal experiences of people over the occurance of contrails. If an expert were here now, I might ask them about the question over differing contrails in the same area of sky - they might have a very simple answer to this, or they might ask for evidence of this occuring. Unfortunately I haven't seen any reliable evidence of this occuring - I have only the word of people I consider 'unreliable' on issues such as these.

Alex,
It should be possible to prove that the empirical observations I have highlighted are nothing out of the ordinary.

Certainly it always takes more research and leg work to back up a statement but that is what you chose when you are the one making the positive statement in the first place - in this case "The phenomona called Chemtrails are just contrails". You chose that or you chose to preside over a weak argument.

Beleieve me I am not stubborn on this one and open to arguments from both sides.

But it seems to me that you made a statement, then when asked to back it up, fliped the switch and started demanding that others disprove you rather than you support your own argument._________________

It should be possible to prove that the empirical observations I have highlighted are nothing out of the ordinary.

I can make suggestions on your observations.

You say that 'the uncommon type of trail' that you see coincides with a great increase in air traffic. What sort of increase? Can you account for it with figures - how many planes per hour? Planes pass over my flat every day - if you ask me how many I wouldn't even be able to guess. If they all left trails I might be surprised how many there are. And of course an increase in air traffic could be coincidental to 'contrail' conditions. Lots of contrails would look like more traffic as the trails remain, and can do for many hours. I have good reason to assume that you may overestimate the amount of traffic on days when there is something unusual to look at in the sky, and underestimate it on other days. Certainly, unless you actually account properly for each day there is no actual data to look at.

I also wonder what you mean by an 'uncommon trail'. Do you mean a contrail that lingers? Or is there some other characteristic of it? Is there any reason to assume this is something other than a contrail? There isn't on any of the still pictures that I have seen of potential chemtrails - they 'look' just like contrails.

Your second point is that during a 'spraying campaign' (your assumption, no evidence backs this up as yet) a normal flight will glide through, presumably not leaving a trail. There are a number of suggestions why this might be - different sorts of engines in different layouts, different sorts of fuel, size of plane, rising or descending. Of course the simplest suggestion is that even within a relatively close space in the sky, there may be differing conditions, some that promote contrails and some don't - the common sense backup to that is the way that clouds form in a random way, and often not in a uniform blanket across the sky.

I don't know enough about the subject to know how conditions can differ in the same sky. It might well be true that the conditions in one part of the sky might be totally different in terms of encouraging contrails to another part a few feet away. If that could be confirmed then even the minor suspicions over chemtrails could be dismissed as conjecture.

I also wonder what you mean by 'the same patch of sky'. Of course we are talking about looking at very distant objects from the ground - what we perceive as the same patch of sky may well be thousands of feet apart, especially in terms of our ability to perceive height from the ground. That alone should at least give us some cause to question assumptions about the same patch of sky.

All of which gives me plenty of room to doubt your 'empirical' observations.

Quote:

Certainly it always takes more research and leg work to back up a statement but that is what you chose when you are the one making the positive statement in the first place - in this case "The phenomona called Chemtrails are just contrails". You chose that or you chose to preside over a weak argument.

You are technically correct to pull me up on this - a better argument is to say "There is no dependable evidence for chemtrails".

Quote:

But it seems to me that you made a statement, then when asked to back it up, fliped the switch and started demanding that others disprove you rather than you support your own argument.

I think that the logical basis here is quite clear. I cannot prove a negative. Even if I categorically inspected and interrogated the crew of every airplane on the planet, you could suggest that chemtrails were provided by 'hidden planes' that I don't know about, or that equipment had been removed prior to my inspection and the crews threatened.

You may criticise me for my approach, and of course I make my own errors, but in this case how else am I to proceed?

I should add that if chemtrails existed, it would be feasibly possible to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. There would be direct evidence of such a thing, but even a witness to the equipment or chemicals being loaded onto planes, or ordered or manufactured. I think it is fair to say that no evidence of this kind exists (to my knowledge).

As pepik reminds you, the same is true of a poisoning campaign in ketchup bottles, which exists at exactly the same level of credibility as chemtrails in my opinion. You cannot prove to me that the ketchup poisoning IS NOT occuring. I have made empirical observations of times when ketchup has seen particularly watery, and others when it has been hard to get it out of the bottle - proof that tampering is going on? Certainly one constituent of the ketchup poison is barium oxide. Prove me wrong...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum